Large near-term projected snowpack loss over the western United StatesAbstract. Peak runoff in streams and rivers of the western United States is strongly influenced by melting of accumulated mountain snowpack. A significant decline in this resource has a direct connection to streamflow, with substantial economic and societal impacts. Observations and reanalyses indicate that between the 1980s and 2000s, there was a 10–20% loss in the annual maximum amount of water contained in the region’s snowpack. Here we show that this loss is consistent with results from a large ensemble of climate simulations forced with natural and anthropogenic changes, but is inconsistent with simulations forced by natural changes alone. A further loss of up to 60% is projected within the next 30 years. Uncertainties in loss estimates depend on the size and the rate of response to continued anthropogenic forcing and the magnitude and phasing of internal decadal variability. The projected losses have serious implications for the hydropower, municipal and agricultural sectors in the region.

Before I get accused of posting hype, note that Nature Communications is a serious (real) scientific journal backed by formidable reputation of the Nature Publishing Group, the world's premier scientific publishing house. The article is open access, so everyone can read it. The implications for the future of skiing industry are somewhat clear.

Large near-term projected snowpack loss over the western United StatesAbstract. Peak runoff in streams and rivers of the western United States is strongly influenced by melting of accumulated mountain snowpack. A significant decline in this resource has a direct connection to streamflow, with substantial economic and societal impacts. Observations and reanalyses indicate that between the 1980s and 2000s, there was a 10–20% loss in the annual maximum amount of water contained in the region’s snowpack. Here we show that this loss is consistent with results from a large ensemble of climate simulations forced with natural and anthropogenic changes, but is inconsistent with simulations forced by natural changes alone. A further loss of up to 60% is projected within the next 30 years. Uncertainties in loss estimates depend on the size and the rate of response to continued anthropogenic forcing and the magnitude and phasing of internal decadal variability. The projected losses have serious implications for the hydropower, municipal and agricultural sectors in the region.

Before I get accused of posting hype, note that Nature Communications is a serious (real) scientific journal backed by formidable reputation of the Nature Publishing Group, the world's premier scientific publishing house. The article is open access, so everyone can read it. The implications for the future of skiing industry are somewhat clear.

Click to expand...

So you are saying to invest heavily in TechnoAlpin?{}

The Snow Factory shown below can make snow at 90 degrees (it is made inside the container). {}

It was reported on The Today Show just this morning that the previous 5 years were the warmest ever recorded, with each year getting subsequently warmer. But, it's all good, right? Nothing to worry about at all.

It was reported on The Today Show just this morning that the previous 5 years were the warmest ever recorded, with each year getting subsequently warmer. But, it's all good, right? Nothing to worry about at all.

Click to expand...

We just need a good volcanic eruption to fill the air with ash blocking out the sun and dropping temps...it's a fine balance--some eruptions increase temps, others decrease temps.

Either way theres nothing we can do but advocate climate change and support it with consumer action. Of course those in Washington have a MUCH higher responsibility so it saddens me that there is a group there that flat out ignores and dismisses science even though science has probably saved their lives quite a few times... oh well.

well, selfishly (which seems to be a trending item in the US) I will likely no longer be skiing in 30 yrs and will avoid buying property in ski locations, rather follow the snow.

while i trust the science and see benefit in being ecologically sensitive for all kinds of reasons (fresh water may be a more significant issue) i believe humans have limited long term models on how our planet's feedback systems work. So I hope somewhere we've overlooked a significant factor, but i try to be an optimist .. a bit hard to be but be but .....

Hmmm, KSL and Vail are pretty savvy, long term focused, vested in honestly assessing the science and are betting big time that there will be snow. I'm not denying anthropogenic climate change - I'm just not buying into that report's projected winners and losers.

Not buying the findings of this study because KSL/Vail are making big investments seems silly to me. These researchers (disclaimer: I happen to know one of them quite well) are top of the field climate scientist. To my knowledge, KSL/Vail does not employ top tier climate scientists that could potentially counter this work. It is my understanding that there is very solid consensus in the remote sensing / hydrologoy / physical geography community that massive changes to our annual snowpack has already happened and will continue to.

I think KSL/Vails actions shouldn't be read against this report. In my view their actions should be seen as reflecting the fact that people are still going to want to ski (cause they both are great marketers), skiing is going to happen in less locations and will likely cost more, and that geographic diversification is an asset at this time.

Northern VT on Lake Champlain in summer mostly w/ a 3/4 wetsuit. I'm land locked at home so I practice w/a trainer in the cow pastures. Takes a bit to learn........ but once up and riding the thrill is equivalent to chest deep pow. Also works so many parts of the brain and body and no dieting necessary........... I'm a beginner and easily lose 20 lbs during KB season just from walking around in the water.........mostly back upwind....... Women are generally better starters than men in this sport. Here's where you start:

So did any of these guys predict the 800" that has already fallen this season on the sierra nevada? *crickets* oh ya.. it's still snowing..

Squaw is thinking of running the lifts all season.. You know what you call snow that exists from one year to the next.. glacier.. They're predicting that this years snow will not melt this year.. Did anyone predict that.. is it in the model?

Wettest year on record for California... which again in the time scale we've been measuring haven't been very long.

So did any of these guys predict the 800" that has already fallen this season on the sierra nevada? *crickets* oh ya.. it's still snowing..

Squaw is thinking of running the lifts all season.. You know what you call snow that exists from one year to the next.. glacier.. They're predicting that this years snow will not melt this year.. Did anyone predict that.. is it in the model?

Wettest year on record for California... which again in the time scale we've been measuring haven't been very long.

well, selfishly (which seems to be a trending item in the US) I will likely no longer be skiing in 30 yrs and will avoid buying property in ski locations, rather follow the snow.

while i trust the science and see benefit in being ecologically sensitive for all kinds of reasons (fresh water may be a more significant issue) i believe humans have limited long term models on how our planet's feedback systems work. So I hope somewhere we've overlooked a significant factor, but i try to be an optimist .. a bit hard to be but be but .....

Has anyone here had to raise funds for research and advance a career in that area? Even for those with the shiniest beacon of impartiality and academic integrity in one hand, fundraising and advancement is a highly political process and their other hand is being held out with an open palm. In some areas academic and objective purity is hard to come by. I'm not picking sides, I'm not represented by either side.

Up to 60% is concerning but then I guess 2% qualifies as up to 60%? Is there a sacrifice of credibility by putting it that way? And aren't they trying to predict the weather long term? If they've figured out a way to do that beyond a coin flip, well, wouldn't that be the real story?

So did any of these guys predict the 800" that has already fallen this season on the sierra nevada? *crickets* oh ya.. it's still snowing..

Squaw is thinking of running the lifts all season.. You know what you call snow that exists from one year to the next.. glacier.. They're predicting that this years snow will not melt this year.. Did anyone predict that.. is it in the model?

Wettest year on record for California... which again in the time scale we've been measuring haven't been very long.

If they can't predict this variability then why all the doom gloom. Go enjoy it while it's there..

Click to expand...

One season does not make a pattern. Just like a day of warm weather in January doesn't mean global warming. Most climate change models predict greater variability in the future. That isn't inconsistent with saying there can be a trend in a particular direction.

Statistics are not absolute, they are probabilities. People that don't like what those probabilities suggest typically rely on exceptional events that don't fit the model's average trend to criticize the model. This says more about their understanding of statistics and modeling than it does about the veracity of the model.